Water bond teeters, may be pulled from 2012 ballot

The next Sierra snowpack reading isn't until Monday. But a recent comment by one of California's top political leaders is having a much larger impact on the state's water outlook than any measurement in the snow.

When state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg briefly mentioned to reporters that the $11 billion water bond set to go before voters in November would probably be pulled off the ballot, the remark reverberated with city water managers, farm leaders and environmentalists.

The bond -- painstakingly cobbled together in a compromise between Sacramento Republicans and Democrats in 2009 -- would be the largest water measure on any ballot in state history. The proposal would also be the most ambitious mix of dams, canals, environmental restoration and other water projects since voters approved the State Water Project as a centerpiece of Gov. Pat Brown's administration 50 years ago.

But since lawmakers approved placing it on the ballot two years ago, it has come under fire from both liberal and conservative groups, who decry it as a pork-laden list of special projects.

Fearing it would fail, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers pulled it off the 2010 ballot, moving it to 2012. And now, its fortunes are again fading fast, as Gov. Jerry Brown and other Democrats worry it could harm their chances on the November ballot of passing a high-profile measure to raise taxes to help balance the state's budgets.

Limiting competition

"In all likelihood the water bond will be put off until 2014, that's what I think," Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said Thursday.

Advertisement

In an interview Tuesday, Steinberg reiterated that view, saying he believes having a measure with such a large cost could harm Brown's tax initiative.

"The No. 1 priority for the state in November is to pass the governor's revenue measure. That's the priority," Steinberg said. "I have a concern that the more money-related measures there are on the ballot, the more difficult it becomes to pass them."

Brown has made similar remarks in recent months, although not very publicly. He declined to comment on the issue Tuesday.

But Steinberg said, "The governor's frame is largely the same as mine. What is going to maximize the chance that we can end the budget deficit in California this year?"

Opposition rampant

Three weeks ago, a poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found a bare majority -- 51 percent -- of likely voters supported the water bond, a daunting prospect given that opponents, who range from the Sierra Club to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, have yet to run a campaign opposing it.

Steinberg said state lawmakers will make the final decision by July on whether to move the bond to the 2014 ballot. He said he supports efforts to reduce its size, but drafting a new version requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature.

The political problem is simple: Rural lawmakers, mostly Republicans, want billions of dollars spent on construction of large dams and other concrete water projects. Liberal Democrats, many of whom live in cities and along the coast, oppose new dams and want the money spent on projects such as groundwater storage, water recycling and wetlands restoration.

To win a two-thirds majority in 2009, lawmakers packed the measure with $2 billion in pet projects. Although it includes $3 billion for new dams, for example, it also includes $100 million for Lake Tahoe bike trails and other projects; $20 million to expand parkland at the Baldwin Hills Conservancy in the downtown Los Angeles district of former Assembly Speaker Karen Bass; $20 million in economic development for Siskiyou County; $20 million for interpretive exhibits at Bolsa Chica wetlands in Huntington Beach; $100 million for restoration of the Salton Sea; and dozens of similar projects.

"To cobble together a majority, various lawmakers had to be bought off to secure their votes," said former Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who represented the Irvine area before moving last year to Texas.

DeVore said the measure should be cut in half, with money going only for dams and restoration of the Delta, the linchpin of the state's water system. And he argued that most projects should be paid by the users rather than all California taxpayers.

The state already has $92 billion in outstanding bond debt. Passing the water bond as it now exists would add $800 million a year in interest payments to the state general fund.

Some Democrats agree the bond measure needs to be reduced in size. But they want the dams out and more "soft" storage of water -- such as groundwater banking -- that doesn't affect wildlife as much as new dams.

Weighing a delay

"Simply punting the same bond to 2014, I think, is a mistake. But I think that's likely to happen," said Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, chairman of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.

"This idea of kicking it down the road, hoping it will change is the worst of both worlds," he added. "The bond is like an old piece of cheese. It's not getting any better with age."

Huffman said the Legislature is so gripped by partisan gridlock that getting a two-thirds majority would be nearly impossible.

Some environmentalists who oppose the bond, however, want it kept on the ballot and killed by voters.

"They are trying to spend money on 19th-century solutions to California's 21st-century problems," said Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club. "If the Legislature won't repeal it, we'd like to see an up-or-down vote in November."

Many urban water agencies are watching nervously.

"The delay of the bond measure is of concern to Silicon Valley because of our aging water supply infrastructure and the loss of environmental benefits," said Beau Goldie, CEO of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which needs hundreds of millions of dollars in seismic upgrades and other repairs on its 10 dams.

The bond is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the California Council of Laborers. It's also embraced by most urban water agencies. But the leader of one of the most prominent water groups seemed resigned Tuesday to putting off a vote once again.

"We need to get the voters to make this decision sooner rather than later," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. "But if your governor and state Senate president are saying now is not the time, and we need to focus on other priorities, it's hard to put that down. This is a marathon, not a sprint."